PDA

View Full Version : Fourteenth Amdmt. Friday



linda22003
08-13-2010, 08:14 AM
Rainy and muggy in the DC area. Lots of damage from yesterday's storm, but pretty much all in Maryland, so that's okay. :D

TOTD: The "birthright" section of the 14th amendment. Not how do YOU feel about it, but what do the Repubs hope to accomplish? Are they just grandstanding, or do they mean it? Will anything ultimately happen on this? (I think not).

Rebel Yell
08-13-2010, 08:55 AM
Rainy and muggy in the DC area. Lots of damage from yesterday's storm, but pretty much all in Maryland, so that's okay. :D

TOTD: The "birthright" section of the 14th amendment. Not how do YOU feel about it, but what do the Repubs hope to accomplish? Are they just grandstanding, or do they mean it? Will anything ultimately happen on this? (I think not).

They're politicans, of course they're grandstanding. They'll never actually DO anything. What if all these illegals end up with citizenship? Votes are the most important thing.

fettpett
08-13-2010, 10:14 AM
The "anchor baby" part wasn't part of the 14th amendment until the 1982 ruling. prior to that the parents had to be legal immigrants for the child to gain citizenship. So...either that ruling needs to be over turned or we need another amendment that states that only children of legal residents can gain citizen status.

linda22003
08-13-2010, 10:28 AM
The "anchor baby" part wasn't part of the 14th amendment until the 1982 ruling.

Citation, please? Thank you.

fettpett
08-13-2010, 10:49 AM
Citation, please? Thank you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion#Citizenship_Clause

The difference between "legal" and "illegal" immigrants was not clear at the time of the decision of Wong Kim Ark.[12] Wong Kim Ark and subsequent cases did not explicitly decide whether such children are entitled to birthright citizenship via the amendment,[13] but such birthright is generally assumed to be the case.[14] In some cases, the Court has implicitly assumed, or suggested in dicta, that such children are entitled to birthright citizenship: these include Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), and INS v. Rios-Pineda, 471 U.S. 444 (1985).[15][16][17]

1982 Case Plyler v. Doe
http://supreme.justia.com/us/457/202/case.html

^ In Plyler v. Doe the court stated in dicta that illegal immigrants are "within the jurisdiction" of the states in which they reside and added in a footnote that "no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful."

1985 Case INS v. Rios-Pineda
http://supreme.justia.com/us/471/444/case.html

By that time, respondent wife had given birth to a child, who, born in the United States, was a citizen of this country. A deportation hearing was held in December, 1978. Respondents conceded illegal entry, conceded deportability, but requested

PoliCon
08-13-2010, 10:56 AM
I see no reason to extend citizenship status to the children of people born here illegally.

fettpett
08-13-2010, 11:14 AM
I see no reason to extend citizenship status to the children of people born here illegally.

yep, the US is one of the few countries that does confer citizenship status on children if they are born here in the US.

Hell there was a ER episode where a Chinese couple comes to the US and gives birth to twins i believe, boy and girl. They take the boy and leave the girl because they know she is now an American, but that she will get put into either foster care or adopted. I believe they even commented on it happening a lot.

I think the best and easiest way to get rid of a large part of the illegal immigrants would be to get rid of jus soli (citizenship by birthright) and be by the legal status of the Parents, at lest one parent needs to be a legal resident.

linda22003
08-13-2010, 01:15 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion#Citizenship_Clause


1982 Case Plyler v. Doe
http://supreme.justia.com/us/457/202/case.html


1985 Case INS v. Rios-Pineda
http://supreme.justia.com/us/471/444/case.html

Thanks - I appreciate the sources. I'll do some reading.

Rebel Yell
08-13-2010, 01:20 PM
I think the best and easiest way to get rid of a large part of the illegal immigrants would be to get rid of jus soli (citizenship by birthright) and be by the legal status of the Parents, at lest one parent needs to be a legal resident.

I agree, but the other (non legal) parent still has to leave.

Gingersnap
08-13-2010, 01:52 PM
It's beautiful here - high 70s right now, clear, and slightly breezy. The hummingbirds have returned! Sadly, our Cooper's hawk made meal out of one of Mr. Snaps' Mourning Doves. At least he didn't eat the dove over the lion fountain like last time. :(

TOTD: Fixing this problem would annoy our current crop of illegal aliens but it also discourage some of them from crossing the border. It might make others go home with their kids. It would also cheer the legal aliens and those who had obtained citizenship through normal channels.

It seems obvious to me that the original amendment applied to former slaves and their children - not to the French Ambassador and his family and not to illegal aliens.

noonwitch
08-13-2010, 02:18 PM
It's hot, sunny and muggy here. I'm glad for the a/c.



TOTD: If they did away with the "anchor baby" provision, it would make the job here easier at times. A lot of those babies end up in the foster care system. If it happens occasionally in Detroit with aliens from Mexico and other Latin American countries, then it happens a lot in Texas, Florida, California, Arizona, etc. Foster care is expensive. We pay around $14 a day for a baby with no special needs.

fettpett
08-13-2010, 02:21 PM
Thanks - I appreciate the sources. I'll do some reading.

no problem :D

@Ginger, i'm jealous, it's 86 today, but it's been in the high 90's the last couple weeks....